Saturday, 18 June 2011

Ken Clarke Attempts To Ensure That The Last Few People In The UK…

Child pornography pedlars could serve just half their sentences under a compromise being thrashed out between David Cameron and Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, it was claimed today.

Yes, that’ll work! Clearly, the public like them far more than they like rapists, don’t they, you raddled old trougher!

Intensive talks are still going on about which offenders will be eligible for a 50 per cent discount on prison sentences in return for making an early plea of guilty.

How about ‘none’? How about we increase sentences instead, and see if that works?

An aide to Mr Clarke said that was "speculation" and no decision had been taken yet. "There will be an announcement in the next few weeks," he said.

When you’ve found something that isn’t a total PR disaster, you mean? Good luck with that...

A report in today's Times said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is strongly backing Mr Clarke in a battle with Mr Cameron, who wants to scale back the so-called "soft sentencing" plan that has been condemned by Conservative backbenchers.

Another chance to humiliate Clegg? Don’t pass this one up, Dave!

And you can shut up as well:

Sadiq Khan, Labour's shadow justice secretary, said: "It is not right that people committing very serious crimes, including grievous bodily harm, possessing and distributing child porn and burglary, could still get away with half the time knocked off their sentence for pleading guilty early.

"There is no evidence this unjust policy will work and the Government should drop it in its entirety."

Riiiiighht, like Labour weren’t in the forefront of the ‘coddling criminals’ charge just a few years ago?

So far as I can tell, it is a matter of faith that Utopia can be attained by incarcerating more and more people, for longer and longer periods. It hasn't ever actually worked, but that of course was due to namby-pamby insufficiency. Of course, once the entire population are in prison- well, only men of course, women are never responsible for their crimes, which are the fault of men- then Utopia will surely be obtained.

If ever I needed a reason to believe that iDave is not a Tory (and I didn't) It was bringing back the utterly arrogant, lazy, treacherous, Maggie backstabbing, condescending, cuntulated piece of shit, that is Ken Clarke, back into the Government.

Just more on 'no politics' really AP. I would guess decision-making in this political class is down to not being bothered by crooks, paedos and the rest because all the action is amongst the poor (most of it). We need a shake up as surely as we need one on debt and not being able to look after our old. None on offer, so plenty of ammo for your stories.aco

I'm with Ian B on this one. To misquote Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Paedophiles and all 'right thinking' people cheered. Next they came for the Gun owners because only criminals want to own firearms. After that they came for the 'Terrorists and we all felt we could sleep safer and "if you've nothing to hide then.."! Following that, for the sake of the children, they then rounded up the Smokers, drinkers, gut buckets and salt-eaters."

A criminal who has lied and worked the system to try and get off should get more punishment than one that has put his/her hands up straight away and admitted the offence(s).Couple that with the fact that under the present system both could be freed after having served half their sentence. So if a Judge sentences a criminal to 10 years does her do this on the basis that 5 yrs is deserved and that is all that will be served? The workings of the system are already unclear and this will make things even murkier.Increasing sentences for the ones that plead Not Guilty, now that could work.

So far as I can tell, it is a matter of faith that Utopia can be attained by incarcerating more and more people, for longer and longer periods.

I'd be more comfortable if the government was not locking people up for so long on the grounds that the punishment didn't fit the crime. If they went to the public and said "we don't think that owning child pornography is as serious as we once did, so we're going to reduce the sentences for it", then at least it would be honest and up front.

What the government is doing instead is just trying to cut the cost of prisons by reducing how long many prisoners spend inside. It's all about saving money, and damn the consequences to the public at large.

Government could solve the problem very quickly by legalising narcotics.

there's a bit of a leap from paedophile to gun-owner, I'd say. In defence of gun-ownership I can quote Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", but I'm pretty sure he didn't say every free-born Englishman has a right to fuck children.

but I'm pretty sure he didn't say every free-born Englishman has a right to fuck children.

He didn't need to. When he wrote it, the marriage age for girls was 12.

Of course, us mere proles aren't privvy to the information the authorities have, but, it appears the number of actual paedophiles is very small. The majority of people getting involved with these laws are people involved with adolescents, that is sexually mature but underage. As with the case Julia reported here a while back of the two 12 year old girls voluntarily giving blow jobs to a bunch of guys who thought they were older. Whatever your moral view of that, it wasn't paedophilia. The word has been smeared beyond all recognition.

Secondly, this article reports these reduced sentences may apply to people convicted of having child pornography. Again, from what one can tell from the research a prole can do, the amount of this available is actually negligible. But what gets included is (a) any photo that the mutaween can wave in front of a jury and say looks "under 18". (b) Photos of page 3 girls from the 1970s, 80s and 90s, many of whom were 16 including the famous Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker etc (c) Old nudist photos with kids in (d) Any photo of a child at all if they've decided in advance that you collected them for prurient purposes (e) Animated gifs of Simpsons characters, Smurfs etc (f) Any and all Japanese Hentai, or any cartoon/image of a girl that the mutaween thinks looks under 18. Can you tell a drawing of a 16 year old from an 18 year old? I can't, and I draw the damned things for a living.

So, I'm suggesting we all calm down a bit before playing Four Yorkshiremen with fantasy sentencing. "I'd cut their balls off, then hang them" "I'd cut their balls off then hang them by their balls!" etc

Sure - a proposal to allow Judges to give 'up to 50%' discount for an early guilty plea is a terrible, terrible thing.

We (or at least the press) have no real interest in trials where the accused simply says "Yes, sorry, I did it", and the judge passes sentence. Hardly worth putting in the paper unless you can report full details of how distressed the witnesses were.

14 only goes when BOTH parties are "under age". A 19 year old, throwing one up a 14 year old, would STILL be done for underage sex. Only when BOTH parties are over 18, does this drop. But even then, a 60 year old with a 19 year old, can be "used as evidence" in a sexualy related court case. Say "Harrasment" or something, even though it is not STRICTLY illegal.

You can not take one countries legal definition, and apply it to another, just because the two LOOK the same on paper.

I take your point that the paedo thing is used to whip up hysteria, but the reason that people are so angry is that the criminal justice system is not doing its job to protect private property, punish wrong-doers and defend the public from evil people.

Therefore, when the authorities indicate that they are introducing even more lenient sentences it provokes outrage.